Commissioner Of Police vs Mohinder Singh
2008 Latest Caselaw 1332 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               WP(C) No.4624/2008


                                            Reserved on: 1st July, 2008
%                                    Date of Decision: 12th August, 2008


Commissioner of Police
Through DCP, Vth Bn., DAP,
Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi                                             ...Petitioner
                      Through:            Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate

                       Versus

Mohinder Singh
Son of Raje Ram
Resident of 870/1, Subhash Marg,
Raj Nagar II,
Palam Colony,
Delhi - 110045                                         ...Respondent
                     Through: None.


CORAM :-

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.        Whether Reporters of Local papers may
          be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.        To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.        Whether the judgment should be
          reported in the Digest?




W.P.(C) No.4624/2008                                            Page 1 of 5
 J.R. MIDHA, J.

This petition arises out of order dated 25th March, 2008

passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal whereby

the learned Tribunal has quashed the order dated 1st April,

2005 of the Disciplinary Authority inflicting punishment of

withholding one year increment and treating the suspension

period as not spent on duty.

2. The Respondent was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector

(ASI) in Delhi Police and was posted at round about, GK Post

Office on 10th November, 2003. The Hon'ble Prime Minister was

returning from Hyderabad House to his residence at Race

Course Road and had to cross the round about of GK Post

Office where barricades were put. The Respondent was

supposed to remove the barricades for unobstructed passage to

the cavalcade of the Hon'ble Prime Minister. However, there

was some delay in removal of the barricades and by that time,

the SPG pilot car reached the barricade and the Inspector,

Rajesh Prasad and Constable, Yogender of SPG came out of the

vehicle when the barricades were removed by the Respondent.

3. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the

Respondent on the charge that the cavalcade of the Hon'ble

Prime Minister came to a halt as a result of which great

inconvenience and immense embarrassment was caused to the

police force by his negligence and carelessness due to the above

lapse on his part in performing his official duties. The Inquiry

Officer conducted the inquiry and came to the conclusion that

the cavalcade of the Prime Minister did not stop at the round

about GK Post Office but the pilot car had to stop and the

occupants of the car had to come out when the barricades were

removed. The Inquiry Officer further observed that the

Respondent did not take sufficient precautions while removing

the barricades. The Disciplinary Authority inflicted the

punishment of withholding of increment of one year and

treating the period of suspension from 10th November, 2003 to

21st April, 2004 as not spent on duty. The Respondent's appeal

against the aforesaid punishment was rejected by the Appellate

Authority which was challenged by the Respondent before the

learned Tribunal.

4. The cavalcade of the Hon'ble Prime Minister did not halt

as was charged against the Respondent in the charge sheet.

PW-4 who was in the lead car of the cavalcade admitted that the

cavalcade of the Prime Minister did not halt but only slowed

down. PW-5 who was also in the lead car, confirmed the same.

DW-1 who was on duty along with the Respondent stated that

staff tried to push the barricade as soon as the cavalcade of the

Prime Minister came near GK post office on Akbar Road and in

the process, one of the barricades fell down which was removed

immediately and the cavalcade of the Prime Minister passed

without halting. DW-2 who was on duty with the Respondent,

also deposed to the same effect. The Inquiry Officer also came

to the conclusion that the cavalcade of the Prime Minister did

not stop.

5. The charge framed against the Respondent that the

cavalcade of the Prime Minister had to stop which caused great

deal of inconvenience to the Prime Minister was not proved in

the inquiry. One of the barricades fell down which was

immediately picked up and removed by the Respondent due to

which there was slight delay. It was just an accident. There

was slight error of judgment in removal of the barricades but

such an act cannot be held to be negligence or carelessness. In

any case, the cavalcade of the Prime Minister had an

unobstructed passage.

6. We agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the

Petitioner has not been able to prove the charge of negligence or

carelessness of the Respondent. The learned Tribunal has

rightly quashed the punishment inflicted on the Respondent.

We do not find any merit in this petition and, therefore, dismiss

the same.

(J.R. MIDHA) JUDGE

(MADAN B. LOKUR) JUDGE 12th August, 2008 s.pal